is retirement planning getting more president’s …...for retirement planning”. and in march,...

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

continued on page 3

continued on page 3

Waiting for the results of the Iowa Democratic Caucus has provided me more than ample time to look back at what we have accomplished and what lies ahead as we pass the mid-point of our 2019-2020 programming year. The state of our PEPC is strong. We are the largest council in the United States, providing a vast array of networking opportunities, educational programs, and social events for all our members. We have a robust and active group of volunteers, great sponsors, an excellent management team, and we are financially secure. I am so fortunate to be leading an organization with such a strong foundation. Special thanks to our Platinum Sponsors – Andersen, Haverford Trust, KPMG, Penn Mutual and Stradley Ronon – their support of the PEPC enables us to enhance the programs and services that we provide to our members.

Our first four luncheon programs continued in the footsteps of prior years, providing you, our members, with access to nationally recognized speakers addressing topics that educate and inform us. We started the year with two programs that addressed global trends affecting charitable and investment decisions. September began with Avery Tucker Fontaine addressing philanthropic topics in her presentation “From Philanthropy to Social Investment: A New Way of Giving”. In October, we heard from Casey Jojic who tackled the issues involving

IN THIS ISSUE:

P.O. Box 579 Moorestown, NJ 08057-0579 | 215-486-6215 | Fax 856-727-9504 | www.philaepc.org

President’s MessageScott Isdaner

“Sustainable Investing” focusing on how investors and companies are adapting their investment and operational decisions to align with their social goals.

In November, we changed focus, with a presentation by Todd Steinberg on how to handle life insurance planning that may no longer meet a client’s original objectives. His topic “Unwinding an Unworkable Transaction with a Workable Policy – Dealing with ILITs, Split Dollar Agreements and Closely-Held Business or Business Owner Owning a Policy” was comprehensive and informative. On top of this, we presented our Distinguished Estate Planner Award to a most deserving estate professional – Thomas (Tom) Forrest.

The new year began with a bang – our January program had the distinction of being our most well attended luncheon ever, with close to 400 attendees. Members and their guests were fortunate to learn about the “Top Ten Estate Planning and Estate Tax Developments of 2019” from one of the most esteemed estate professionals in the country – Ron Aucott.

Iowa Caucus update – technology malfunctions and only 71% of the vote has been counted.

Our remaining luncheons in February and March also promise to bring timely

Transfer on Death Accounts - OR – How to Destroy an Estate Plan 6

Lions [Johnson] and Tigers [LaRocca] and Bears [Orphans’ Courts], Oh My! 8

More Choices Than Ever for Specialty rust Situs 11

The Philadelphia Estate Planning Council Welcomes New Members 15

Holiday Party 17

PHILADELPHIA ESTATE PLANNING COUNCIL

VOL. XXIX, NO. 2 • WINTER 2020

Is Retirement Planning Getting More SECURE? Think Again!Alan Weissberger, Esq. Daniel P. Geraghty, CFP

The SECURE Act, a new retirement legislation that took effect on January 1, 2020, has far reaching implications for retirement planning. For years, estate planners and tax attorneys have recommended leaving tax-deferred retirement accounts, such as traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs and 401Ks, to a designated beneficiary who can stretch out the distribution payments for as long as possible, maximizing the tax benefits. However, the passage of the SECURE Act, which stands for Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement, has made achieving this goal much more difficult. It significantly shortens the payout period for many beneficiaries, reducing it from their entire life expectancy to a maximum of 10 years. This erodes the value of many carefully constructed estate plans, which were designed to pass along tax deferred assets from the owners of retirement accounts (“owners”) to successive generations of

https://www.philaepc.org/

WWW.PHILAEPC.ORGPHILADELPHIA ESTATE PLANNING COUNCIL

2 BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

OFFICERSPresident

Scott Isdaner, CPA, JDIsdaner & Company [email protected]

Vice PresidentAndrew J. Haas, Esq.Blank Rome [email protected]

TreasurerEric Hildenbrand, CFACoho [email protected]

SecretaryJames Revels, CPA, MST, AEP® KPMG [email protected]

Immediate Past PresidentJ.R. Burke, CLU, ChFC, CFP®Perspective Financial Group, an Alera Group [email protected]

DIRECTORSTerm Expiring in 2020

Christopher Borden, CFP, Stedmark Partners at Janney Montgomery Scott LLCJill R. Fowler, Esq., Heckscher, Teillon, Terrill & Sager, P.C.Thomas R. McDonnell, AndersenErin McQuiggan, Duane Morris LLP

Term Expiring in 2021:Jacklynn Barras, BNY Mellon Wealth ManagementScott Lillis, BNY Mellon Wealth ManagementJosh Niles, Haverford Trust CompanyStephanie Sanderson-Braem, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP

Term Expiring in 2022Fareeha Arshad, Glenmede Trust Company, N.A. Leanne Evans, Alex. BrownGlenn A. Henkel, Kulzer & DiPadova, P.A.Tim Zeigler, Kamelot Auction House

Term Expiring in 2023Richard Bell, Planning Capital Management Corp.Rachel Gross, Esq., Jewish Federation of Greater PhiladelphiaJulie Olley, Brinker CapitalAlan Weissberger, Esq., Hirtle Callaghan

NEWSLETTER CO-EDITORSJames Revels, CPA, MST, AEP®, KPMG LLP, 267-256-1641

[email protected] Weissberger, Esq., Hirtle Callaghan, 610-943-4229

[email protected]

PEPC OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 2019 - 2020 UPCOMING EVENTS

Please register at www.philaepc.org.

LUNCHEON PROGRAMSThe Union League of Philadelphia140 South Broad StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19102www.unionleague.org 11:45 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Registration12:00 p.m. – 12:30 p.m. Luncheon12:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. Program 2020 Luncheon Program DatesTuesday, March 17, 2020

DROP-IN NETWORKING EVENTWednesday, February 19, 20205:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.City Tap House2 Logan SquarePhiladelphia, PA

ETHICS FORUMThursday, April 23, 20208:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.The Union League of Philadelphia140 South Broad StreetPhiladelphia, PA

ANNUAL MEETING, SEMINAR & RECEPTIONTuesday, May 12, 20203:00 – 3:30 p.m. – Registration3:30 – 6:00 p.m. – Council Remarks & Program6:00 – 8:00 p.m. – Cocktail ReceptionNational Constitution Center525 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19106

24TH ANNUAL GOLF & TENNIS OUTINGMonday, June 22, 202012:30 p.m. Golf Tee Time2:30 p.m. Tennis Round RobinThe Union League Golf Club at Torresdale3801 Grant AvenuePhiladelphia, PA 19114




4) Changes the Kiddie TaxIt repeals the kiddie tax rules so that a child’s unearned income will now be taxed at the parents’ tax rate. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in December 2017, a child’s unearned income had been taxed at the trust/estate rates.

5) Eliminates the Stretch Retirement PlanIt requires that beneficiaries of a defined contribution plan, traditional IRA or Roth IRA withdraw the entire balance of the account by the end of the 10th year following the owner’s death. This new 10-year payout rule applies for beneficiaries who inherit retirement accounts from an owner who passes away after January 1, 2020, when the law went into effect.2

While these changes are all meaningful, by far the most impactful provision of SECURE for estate planning is the last one. Under the prior legislation, the beneficiary of a 401K or IRA had their entire life (based on life expectancy calculations) to benefit from the tax deferred status of the retirement account. It was common practice for an owner to designate younger successors, including children and grandchildren, as beneficiaries, recognizing that they have longer life expectancies and therefore are able to defer taxes for a longer period of time. These beneficiaries could take the required minimum distribution each year and let the rest of the money compound tax deferred for years.

This estate planning strategy no longer makes sense under the new legislation because most designated beneficiaries can only benefit from the tax deferral for a maximum of 10 years after the owners’ death. For example, under the prior law, if you inherited a $1 million traditional IRA from your parent or grandparent when you were 35 years old,

continued on page 4

President’s Message continued

Secure Act continued

and relevant topics. In February, the “hot off the presses” SECURE Act will be addressed by Brad Richter who will focus on “The SECURE Act: A Whole New Game for Retirement Planning”. And in March, John Porter will be presenting an update on current IRS examination and litigation positions of estate returns.

We owe thanks to our luncheon sponsors – without their support, PEPC would not be able to provide our members with access to the most prominent thought leaders in the estate planning field.

The highlight of the social calendar last year was our annual holiday party. The new venue (JG Domestic) was a big hit, with the location, food, door prizes and networking all earning high marks. Our Social Committee did a great job pulling this all together.

The balance of the year brings even more great programs and events. Our annual Ethics Forum will be held on April 23 at the Union League. It was a must attend event last year (oversubscribed!) and will be so again this year. Our Annual Meeting on May 12th will take place at the fabulous Constitution Center with a program presented by Professor Sam Donaldson from Georgia State University who will bring his humor and insight to the world of income taxation of trusts. And, don’t forget to sign up early for our annual golf and tennis outing scheduled for June 22nd at the terrific Union League Golf Club at Torresdale. It’s always a sell-out.

Remember – the more you take advantage of all that PEPC has to offer, the more you will be enriched. Join a committee, become a sponsor, bring in a new member, attend educational programs, join in the fun at our social gatherings – whatever you do, I’m sure

you will be rewarded.

By the way, I’m still waiting for those Iowa Caucus results!

children and grandchildren. In light of this change, we recommend reviewing your beneficiary designations to determine if they are optimal and if any adjustments are warranted.

In this article, we review the most salient points of the SECURE Act (“SECURE”) and discuss how it might affect your thinking about retirement planning going forward.

Understanding the SECURE ActCongress passed the SECURE Act with the intention of modernizing existing retirement legislation and encouraging retirement savings. Among other changes, the new law:

1) Increases the Required Minimum Distribution AgeIt raises the starting age for required minimum distributions (RMDs) from retirement plans to age 72 from age 70½, acknowledging that Americans are living and working longer.1

2) Eliminates the Maximum IRA Contribution AgeIndividuals can now make contributions to traditional Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) at any age, whereas previously it was not allowed beyond age 70 ½.

3) Allows Penalty-Free Retirement Withdrawals for Birth or Adoption ExpensesIt permits penalty-free withdrawals up to $5,000 for qualified birth or adoption expenses. This applies on an individual basis, so a married couple may receive a penalty-free withdrawal up to $10,000.




based on the current IRS life expectancy table, you would have 48.5 years over which to spread out distributions. Upon receiving the IRA, you would start taking a minimum required distribution each year, calculated by dividing the account balance as of the end of the previous year by your remaining life expectancy. The first withdrawal would be $20,619 ($1,000,000/48.5 years) and this amount would be taxed at your current tax rate as ordinary income. Future annual distributions would vary depending on the investment return and your age.

Under the new law, distributions from the inherited $1 million IRA can only be spread out over a maximum of 10 years. However, it is important to note that there is no minimum required distribution; the beneficiary can choose to have entire balance of the IRA distributed at the end of the 10th year following the owner’s death. This option may be appealing to a beneficiary who wishes to maximize the tax benefits of the IRA and let it grow tax deferred for 10 years. In that case, the beneficiary would receive a lump sum of $1,000,000 plus any investment return in Year 10 – and a very hefty tax bill!

Of course, a beneficiary who wishes to avoid such a large tax bill in Year 10 can opt to spread out the distributions from the IRA. If the distributions are spread out evenly over the full ten years, the first annual withdrawal would be $100,000 ($1,000,000/10 years). While this option reduces the tax bill compared with taking a lump sum, this distribution is still significantly higher than under the prior law.

The bottom line is that under the new regime, deciding when to take distributions is much more complicated. Planning will involve more complex modeling to understand how to maximize

the tax benefits for each individual beneficiary.

Exceptions to the 10-Year RuleThe law makes some noteworthy exceptions for a category of Eligible Designated Beneficiaries (EDBs) who are still able to take annual distributions over their life expectancy and are not subject to the 10-year payout rule. EDBs are limited to: 1) the owner’s surviving spouse, 2) the owner’s minor child (after the child turns the age of majority, the 10-year rule takes effect)3 3) a disabled beneficiary (upon his or her death, the 10-year rule takes effect), 4) a chronically-ill beneficiary (upon his or her death, the 10-year rule takes effect) or 5) a beneficiary who is less than 10 years younger than the owner (most likely a sibling or a friend).

Even taking these exceptions into account, the SECURE Act significantly changes the incentives to pass down retirement assets to future generations.

Implications of the SECURE ActThe SECURE Act upends the conventional approach to planning for retirement and makes many current estate plans less tax effective than originally intended. Owners should seize this opportunity to review their plans, especially their beneficiary designations, to understand how they will be affected. Below we review some thoughts and strategies to consider as you undertake this review.

Look to the Youngest Generation of MinorsUnder SECURE, the qualification of minors as EDBs means that they have the greatest ability to stretch out the tax deferral of the retirement account. Assuming that your child is no longer a minor, a better option may be to leave your retirement account to your minor grandchildren. A newborn beneficiary will have a full 28 years (10 years after turning 18) for the

account to compound tax-free. This is still significantly less impactful than their lifespan, but an improvement over the 10-year limit for many other beneficiaries.

Weigh the Tradeoffs of Paying Taxes Now vs. LaterFollowing the passage of SECURE, it is even more important that any planning strategy consider the tax tradeoffs of paying taxes now vs. having a beneficiary pay them in the future. For some beneficiaries, such as a young adult without substantial earnings, the compressed 10-year distribution period, and subsequent higher annual income, will force them into a higher tax bracket. If you are in a lower tax bracket today, you may want to consider a full or partial conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. By converting and paying taxes today, the beneficiaries of your Roth IRA avoid paying taxes on future distributions. In addition, the payment of income taxes during your life reduces your gross estate value for estate tax purposes and therefore reduces your future estate tax bill. Moreover, as the Roth IRA owner, there is no required annual distribution so the account compounds tax-free as long as you are alive.

It is worth noting that the SECURE Act also applies to Roth IRAs, so one downside is that the 10-year payout limits the time for the retirement income to grow tax-free after the owner’s death. Therefore, it may only make sense if you think that your current tax rates are lower than they will be in the future and/or are lower than your beneficiary’s tax rate is likely to be.

Think Twice About Putting an IRA in a TrustThe SECURE Act makes certain types of IRA trusts less appealing. Conduit (or “see through”) trusts have long been a popular planning tool because the beneficiary


continued on page 5




receives the annual RMDs outright (similar to a traditional IRA), but the underlying principal of the IRA has an added layer of asset protection because it remains in the trust. The trust, as the “conduit” to the beneficiary, insulates the assets from any imprudent behavior on the part of the beneficiary and from any claims from a creditor or divorcing spouse.

Under SECURE, a conduit trust would effectively blow up after ten years (assuming the IRA is the only asset in the trust), and the entire account would pass to the beneficiary outright. This would have negative tax consequences for the beneficiary of the trust, making him subject to greater income tax as a result of receiving the IRA distributions over 10 years rather than over his life expectancy. It would also limit the timeframe of the trust’s asset protection. At the end of the 10-year period, the funds would pass from the care of the trustee to the beneficiary, making them available to creditors or to potential squandering.

Instead of using a conduit trust, owners might consider an accumulation trust. With an accumulation trust, annual distributions from an IRA are accumulated within the trust structure. Under SECURE, distributions still must be paid out to the trust within ten years of the owner’s passing, but the assets can remain in the trust for as long as the trust terms dictate, preventing them from being distributed outright to the beneficiary. Although the accumulation trust will likely be subject to a higher tax bill, the creditor protections can extend for a longer period of time.4

Consider Naming a Charitable Trust as BeneficiaryIf you are charitably inclined, it may make sense to name a charitable entity, such as a charitable remainder trust (CRT), as a beneficiary. The treatment of CRTs is not

affected by the SECURE Act and it can somewhat replicate the effect of a stretch IRA. Upon the death of the owner, the CRT receives the IRA and can make annual distributions (generally a minimum 5% payout is required) to certain designees, such as children or grandchildren, for a term (limited to 20 years) or for the remainder of their lives. This strategy must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as the actuarial value of the charitable remainder interest must be at least 10% of CRT’s initial funding value. After the beneficiaries pass away, the remainder goes to a charity (or charities) that you have designated. The CRT is tax-exempt, and therefore, similar to a traditional IRA, the assets can be paid (and grow within) to a CRT without triggering an immediate income tax event. In addition, the CRT will generate an estate tax deduction – your estate is reduced by the charitable deduction and therefore you pay less in estate tax.

Consider Splitting Up the Primary BeneficiaryTypically, owners name their spouse as the primary beneficiary and children or grandchildren as the contingent beneficiary. Under the SECURE Act, it may make sense to name both your spouse (or another EDB) and children as primary beneficiaries so that they split the distributions, and therefore get smaller distributions each year. The children can start taking smaller distributions at the death of the first parent and then will start the second half at the death of the second parent. As a result, they are stretching their distribution for up to twice as long and may pay less in taxes.

Concluding ThoughtsWith 2020 ushering in a new era for retirement planning, we strongly encourage you to conduct a thorough review of your estate plan to understand whether it is affected by the SECURE Act.

Planning factors that were important pre-SECURE, such as the age and tax status of owners and beneficiaries, deserve even more scrutiny to plan effectively post-SECURE. Many of the best practices that were widely accepted up until this year may no longer make sense.

1 Individuals who turned 70 ½ prior to December 31, 2019 will not be able to take advantage of this new minimum distribution age and will still be required to start taking minimum distributions at 70 ½.

2 Beneficiaries of a retirement account that was inherited from an owner who passed away prior to January 1, 2020 are grandfathered in and are not subject to the change in regulation.

3 The age of majority, or the age at which you become an adult, varies by state although it is 18 in a majority of states.

4 Trusts are subject to the highest marginal tax rate at $12,950 in income for 2020.

Alan Weissberger, Esquire is the Senior Tax and Estate Planning Solution Specialist with primary responsibility for the financial, estate and tax planning for individual clients at Hirtle Callaghan.

Daniel P. Geraghty, CFP® is a Director and Investment Officer with Hirtle Callaghan serving the firm’s private and institutional clients in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Founded in 1988, Hirtle Callaghan, America’s First Outsourced Chief Investment Officer, supervises over $20 billion for families and institutions. In our role as Chief Investment Officer, we build global investment programs that are customized to each of our client’s unique needs. The firm uses its collective purchasing power and aggregate expertise to access best-in-class specialist managers in diverse asset classes and strategies.





continued on page 7

The following is a scene that may be common in Pennsylvania. An attorney arrives in the office and learns that a client died over the weekend. The attorney gets the deceased client’s documents from the Will safe and reviews them carefully. Everything seems to be in place. The client, a recent widower, left his assets in trust for his children and grandchildren. There is a Special Needs Trust for a child with Down’s Syndrome and a special trust for a child who has a substance abuse problem. The assets will be protected from the creditors of the beneficiaries for at least two generations and governmental benefits will be preserved for the Special Needs grandchild. The family will be relieved to know that the child with a substance abuse problem will not have easy access to money. Everything looks good.

Later that week, the attorney meets with the family. The attorney is given a list of the decedent’s assets and the attorney notices that a significant portion of the decedent’s investments non-IRA assets have been moved to one of the large mutual fund companies but does not think anything about it. The family arranges to probate the Will and the executor gives the attorney the authorization to communicate with the mutual fund company. And then the problems began to unfold.

To the attorney’s great chagrin, when the decedent’s assets were moved to the mutual fund family, a not uncommon conversation occurred. The entire

transaction was handled by telephone and the mail between the decedent and a representative of the mutual fund family. At the end of the conversation between the decedent and the fund rep, an apparently innocent question was posed to the client. “Who do you want to name as your beneficiary?” The decedent asked why he needed a beneficiary and the mutual fund rep said, “Doing so will help you avoid probate saving your estate a lot of money.” Since the decedent had heard of all the myths surrounding probate, this seemed like a great idea. So the decedent named his children as beneficiaries, making a mental note to contract his attorney to discuss what he had done. The decedent did not understand the implications of making a TOD beneficiary designation. The conversation with the attorney never took place. And then the decedent died.

As a result, the decedent’s estate plan collapsed. The investments at the mutual fund company, most of the decedent’s money, became payable directly to the decedent’s children. None of the assets held at the mutual fund company would pass through probate and therefore would not be able to pass to the various trusts the decedent, with the attorney’s guidance, had created. No assets would go to the Special Needs Trust. No assets would go into the trust for the substance abusing child. Governmental benefits would be lost. The substance abuser would have access to money without any limitation, a real disaster. The beneficiary’s creditors would have a bonanza and the generation skipping plan of the decedent was destroyed.

One asks how this can happen? The mutual fund rep is not an attorney. The mutual fund rep and the mutual fund company are not supposed to practice law. Can this possibly be legal? The answer appears to be - YES!

The designations in question are referred to as either (i) Transfer on Death (“TOD”) designations or (ii) Payable on Death (“POD”) and are described in Chapter 64 of the Probate, Fiduciary and Trust Code of PA (There are comparable statutes in most other states. For the remainder of this article, both shall be referred to as TOD.). These designations are for transfer of death securities registration (for stocks and bonds), although they are similar to In Trust For (“ITF”) designations with banks for depositary accounts. ITF accounts are described in 20 PA §6303(b). ITF accounts at banks have been around for years and are commonly known as a “poor man’s will” because they can serve as a will substitute. ITF’s sometimes create problems in an estate plan but they are a very small problem compared to TOD accounts. This is because bank accounts and certificates of deposit tend to be relatively small by comparison to the value of securities accounts. The words “securities accounts” include brokerage accounts and mutual fund accounts at the numerous financial institutions. This is where the money is. A TOD designation is a relatively new statutory creation. PA’s law on TOD registration was promulgated in 1997. Before then, one could not have a TOD registration for a securities account.

A TOD account is different from the designated beneficiary designations on IRAs and other retirement plan investments. A “Designated Beneficiary” is a requirement for beneficiaries to be able to take the Required Minimum Distribution for an Inherited IRA when the retirement plan participant dies. But a TOD has nothing to do with retirement plans. They enable the investment account to be “Non-Testamentary” as provided in 20 PA §6409 and enable the account owner to avoid probate. In effect, the security account of the owner will bypass the decedent’s Will or Living Trust

Transfer on Death Accounts - OR – How to Destroy an Estate PlanAlan J. Mittelman, Esq.




and pass directly to the person(s) named as beneficiary under the TOD designation - often defeating an estate plan that was designed with much expense and foresight.

The development and use of TOD designations with the large mutual fund companies is perceived by professionals as a more serious problem than the TOD designation for an investment account at a brokerage firm. With a typical brokerage firm, the client may be more likely to know and have met the investment advisor. There tends to be more interaction among the “estate planning team,” the client’s attorney, tax advisor, CPA, insurance and investment advisors. The likelihood of significant errors in titling of assets and making beneficiary designations is thought to be lower. However, today, many clients deal directly with the large mutual fund companies. This group markets mutual funds and ETF’s directly to consumers and are some of the largest financial institutions in the world. In the author’s experience, it is rare for one of the large mutual fund companies to initiate a contact with the client’s attorney to discuss whether it makes sense to have a beneficiary designation on a securities account or whether doing so will undo a carefully designed estate plan. Clients often do not understand the significance of making a TOD beneficiary designation and sometimes have no recall of doing so. Asking a client whether the client has made a TOD designation without getting independent verification often is worthless. Clients just do not know or recall what they have signed.

The cynic among us may suggest that financial institutions use beneficiary designations to enhance their chances of retaining the money when a client

dies. Oddly, 20 PA §6408(c) discharges the registering entity (the mutual fund) from liability if registered in compliance with 20 PA §6407. This suggests that even if the mutual fund company ruins the client’s estate plan, they will not be held liable. Imagine if an attorney or other professional interfered with or designed a poorly crafted estate plan. They would be exposed to liability from the disgruntled beneficiaries of the estate or trust.

Fortunately, 20 PA §6111.2 revokes the TOD designation of a spouse if the account owner divorces or dies pending the divorce. Imagine the bad feelings that would erupt if the person getting divorced changed his/her will and then died but the TOD designation was not changed, too.

The TOD account is still subject to PA inheritance tax and federal estate tax. It is not a tax planning device. However, unless one makes a Will with a tax clause that allocate inheritance tax liability to the TOD account beneficiaries, other parties may wind up bearing the burden of the inheritance tax for the TOD beneficiary. The author believes that the most common death tax clause in a Will requires that death taxes be paid from the residue of the estate, not from specific assets. The need for a coordinated estate plan is more important now than ever.

The creation of the TOD account puts more pressure on the attorney and other advisors to make sure that the estate plan will work. Why pay thousands of dollars for a plan that is easily ruined by a client “accidentally” making a TOD designation? Common estate planning tools like Living Trusts, Generation Skipping Trusts, Estate Tax Saving By-Pass Trusts, Disclaimer Trusts, Special Needs Trusts, etc. all can be impacted or made useless by the TOD account.

One solution for the attorney preparing an estate plan is to ask the question and

Transfer continuedthen demand proof that there are no TOD designations. The monthly brokerage statement or mutual fund statement does not provide this information. The question should be repeatedly asked because clients may change investment advisors or investment companies without consulting their attorneys.

Another remedy is to include a power to modify or eliminate the TOD designation in a client’s Durable General Power of Attorney. Just having such a power in the Power of Attorney can stimulate discussion with clients about the risks of the TOD designation. And, having such a power will enable the conscientious Agent under the General Power of Attorney to fix the situation if a parent/client becomes incapacitated.

Illustrating the problem is a pending Pennsylvania case (Fontunato v. CGA Law Firm and Driscoll, No.. 1:17-cv-00201, U.S. District Ct., M.D. Pennsylvania). This lawsuit concerns a law firm that prepared a Will that was partly defeated by a TOD designation created on an account at a large national brokerage firm. This as yet unresolved case involves some of the intended beneficiaries under a Will who received substantially less than intended under the decedent’s Will because of the TOD designation. The case does not state whether the financial advisor was sued, too. Even if the law firm eventually prevails, the cost, time, pain and reputational impact of an extended law suit can be terrible.

The best advice - BE AWARE, ASK QUESTIONS AND GET RELIABLE ANSWERS

Alan Mittelman, Esq. is a Member of Spector Gadon Rosen Vinci, P.C. in Philadelphia, PA. and is a past President of the Philadelphia Estate Planning Council.




continued on page 9

ever being the target of such excoriation from any Orphans’ Court Judge. [See, also, Footnote 2.]

Perhaps easier said than done. I am certain that almost, if not all of our members are aware of the fact that in Pennsylvania we are blessed (or cursed depending on your perspective) that there does not exist a published Court-approved fee schedule for either attorneys or fiduciaries. Instead, since 1983, all who assume the mantle of counsel or executor [or trustee or guardian] are obligated to comply with decision law, and for lawyers, too, the Rules of Professional Conduct, to determine the fees to be charged for their services, with the one and only guidepost (for executors and attorneys) being a fee schedule mentioned in and adopted by Judge Wood of the Chester County Orphans’ Court in the matter of Johnson Estate, 4 Fid. Rep. 2d 6 (O.C. Chest. 1983). Some years later, in Nix Estate, 8 Fid. Rep. 2d 179 (O.C. Chester 1988), Judge Wood clarified his thoughts on his own opinion in Johnson, with the following:

“I have found the guidelines,.., to be helpful, and to establish a sort of prima facie criteria. If a fee is charged above the guidelines, that operates as a red flag and tells me to look into the fee a little more closely. If the fee is below the guidelines, I don’t look into it unless a question is raised. I also start with the proposition that the guidelines establish the appropriate maximum fee for the routine estate.”

What is essential to understand is that the Johnson fee schedule is only a starting point in evaluating fiduciary fees and commissions and counsel fees. It establishes no mandatory rules. The fact is that Orphans’ Court Judges have tremendous discretion to approve or disapprove fees sought by fiduciaries and counsel. And once a matter has entered the court system, the fees of fiduciaries

and their counsel are always subject to court approval and revision—whether or not any interested parties have objected to them. This leads to Lesson #1: Stay out of court!

The case law in Pennsylvania that has addressed the issue of fees is staggering just in terms of the number of cases that have come before the Courts. I do not intend to offer here any synopsis of same, other than to describe below a few of more recent vintage. Instead, I would refer all to a very comprehensive compendium (123 pages) that was included as Chapter M of the materials produced for the 22nd Annual Estate Law Institute sponsored by PBI, which was authored by Margaret Sager, Esq. and Martin Heckscher, Esq. In addition, for the stout of heart, I refer you to a 212 page Adjudication, dated March 7, 2017, by Judge Mark Tunnell of the Chester County Orphans’ Court, in the matter of the Estate of Sir John Rupert Hunt Thouron, an estate valued at $46 million, that includes numerous citations of precedent, and described by the publishers of Fiduciary Review as a “treasure trove” for counsel dealing with issues involved in the two estates that were the subject of that adjudication, which included executors fees and attorney fees.

On the other hand, I would be remiss if I did not re-publish here, for the convenience of our members, the ten factors cited specifically by our Supreme Court in LaRocca Estate, 431 Pa. 542, 246 A.2d 337 (1968), which circumscribes any inquiry of reasonableness of counsel fees in estate practice in Pennsylvania:

1. the amount of work; 2. character of the services; 3. difficulty of the problems involved; 4. importance of the litigation; 5. the amount of money or value of the

property in question;

I assume I’m not that much different than most of my attorney colleagues practicing in this chosen slice of the profession, wherein we attempt to keep abreast of the latest developments in the law by reading not only the newly enacted statutes, regulations, rulings and other administrative pronouncements, but also the decisions coming out of the various courts, both Federal and State, that are called upon to resolve disputes that arise from time to time between taxing authorities and taxpayers, or between private persons, inter se, when interpretation of documents becomes the subject matter at issue, or regrettably when beneficiaries become un-enamored with the manner in which fiduciaries have carried out the duties they have voluntarily assumed. It is this latter category of disputes, played out mostly in the Orphans’ Court Divisions of our Commonwealth’s Common Pleas Courts, with which I find myself unusually attracted, primarily because it is almost always in this particular milieu where our bread and butter (fees) is highly scrutinized and tested under that all elusive criteria of “reasonableness”. Thus, this very recent decision from Judge Herron did not escape my eye, which included this statement: “…how did a relatively straightforward estate administration turn into an attorney-fee-generating machine?” Jones Est., 9 Fid. Rep. 3d 321 (O.C. Div. Phila.). At first I shuddered, but then quickly regrouped and vowed to myself (again) to avoid

Lions [Johnson] and Tigers [LaRocca] and Bears [Orphans’ Courts], Oh My!1

Joel S. Luber, Esq.




Lions, Tigers and Bears continued

continued on page 10

6. the degree of responsibility incurred; 7. whether the fund was “created” by

the attorney; 8. the professional skill and standing of

the attorney; 9. the results the attorney was able to

obtain; and10. the ability of the client to pay

a reasonable fee for services rendered.2

Accompanying this list, and not to be ignored, are the eight factors in Rule 1.5(a) of the PA Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers that are to be considered in determining whether a particular fee is “excessive”. They are:

1. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

2. The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service properly.

3. The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.

4. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.

5. The amount involved and the results obtained.

6. The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.

7. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.

8. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services.

What does all of this mean for us attorneys in setting our fees; and will our written engagement letter, mandated by our Rules of Professional Conduct [Rule 1.5(b)], in which our fees must be included, be sufficient if our fees are later challenged? Should we be setting fees

based on a flat amount for each task, a percentage of the value of the estate, or one based strictly on time multiplied by an hourly rate? Will it make a difference to a Court, or will a Court look more favorably on a fee based on one method versus another? From only the small sampling of the plethora of cases that I have reviewed over the many years of my practice, I cannot offer an opinion that one method is preferable over another. As first stated above, the bottom line will always be compliance with the polestar test of “reasonableness”. 3 The following are a very few recent decisions which I proffer in order to shed some light.

In Lesser Est., Pa. Super. No. 1295 EDA 2016 (non-precedential decision), the Superior Court affirmed the reduction (by the Montgomery County Orphans’ Court) of attorney fees, from $45,000 to $10,000, notwithstanding the written fee agreement between attorney and executors, which was “based…at least partially” on the Johnson Estate schedule, which was 3% of estate value. The estate was valued at about $1,450,000. The Superior Court opinion is of interest in that it described the ebb and flow over more than three decades of references to Johnson Estate since its appearance in 1983, but also stated, however, that the “true test is always what the services were actually worth and to award a fair and just compensation therefor”. The panel deciding this case also cited “the factors to be considered” from LaRocca’s Trust.

In Naugle Est., (O.C. Div. Franklin), 6 Fiduc. Rep. 3d 149, which was an estate involving numerous charitable beneficiaries, the Attorney General objected to an executor’s fee of $183,443.24 in an estate with date of death value of $11,544,598.15, or about 2.4%, which was determined to be reasonable. Because this judicial district had not “adopted” a fee schedule, the Court did not apply the Johnson schedule.

Instead, Judge Meyers quoted PEF Code §3537, which allows for compensation to the personal representative of an estate that is “reasonable and just”, and turned to Reed’s Estate, 462 Pa. 336, for the proposition that as a prima facie matter, a 3% executor’s fee was an acceptable administration fee. Further support for the decision came from his “consider[ation of ] approximately twenty-two published opinions issued by fellow Orphans’ Court jurists across the Commonwealth and published in the Fiduciary Reporter, if only to get a sense of how fellow Orphans’ Court judges may be viewing and deciding these same issues.”

In Keller Est., (O.C. Div. Montg.), 7 Fiduc. Rep. 3d ___, the Montgomery County Orphans’ Court adjudicated both counsel fees and executors’ commissions, finding a “flat fee” for “routine services” by counsel was “reasonable in view of the large size of the estate [about $9.7M], the responsibilities attendant thereto, and the skill exhibited by the lawyers”; and ruling further that the Johnson Estate schedule is not binding, albeit a “useful tool for setting parameters as to what is reasonable”. An executor commission of $70,000 was also found to be reasonable for one of three fiduciaries (the other two waived fees to increase their shares as beneficiaries of the estate without adding to their taxable income), and rejecting an objection based on an allegation that this executor had agreed to serve without compensation, stating it would be unusual for a fiduciary who is not a beneficiary to serve without compensation.

In Susick Est., (O.C. Div. Phila.) 6 Fiduc. Rep. 3d August; affirmed by Pa. Super., No. 1518 EDA 2015, May 11, 2016, an estate valued at $102,000, of which the decedent’s residence accounted for $96,000, an attorney’s fee of $34,848 was reduced to $18,000, and the executor





Lions, Tigers and Bears continued

was surcharged $16,848. This was Judge Carrafiello, who sounded very much like Judge Herron in the Jones Est. case cited above, and just as annoyed, noting that the fee charged would have been appropriate under the Johnson Estate schedule for a million dollar estate. Of particular interest to the court was $4,877 billed for 24 hours of time involving a $4,500 automobile in which the decedent had only a one half interest. The Superior Court, in its opinion on appeal upholding the reduction of counsel fees and the surcharge of the executor, also included this eye-popping exchange between counsel and the trial court, whose response to the question as to why his fee was 34% of the estate said “the math is what it is”, the trial court’s retort was said answer was “indicative of his posture throughout the proceedings.”

Lessons to be Learned [In addition to Lesson #1] 1. As counsel, if engaged by the executor

of an estate, make sure your fee agreement is specific, whether flat fee per project, or fee for service based on hourly rates, or a percentage tied to Johnson Estate schedule. Personally, I have never done the latter. My feeling is that a fixed percentage will always be detrimental to either the client or counsel. But, then, when all is said and done, I will test the total fee against the Johnson Estate schedule, being prepared to adjust same if it is too far off (assuming no unusual matters arose during the administration), especially if there is going to be a formal accounting, or any inkling that there are beneficiaries lying in wait to pounce on the executor.

2. If counsel is designated as an executor under a client’s Will, and intends to serve as counsel to the estate as

well, while not forbidden, per se, be very careful to document the tasks performed in separate capacities and the time spent performing each. J. Brooke Aker, an expert, noted that in a “normal” estate “one would expect an attorney who is also an executor to charge approximately one and one-half times counsel fees and dispenses with executor’s compensation.” Crowers Est., 26 Fid. Rep. 2d 518 (O.C. Phila. 2006).

3. As counsel to an estate, make certain to advise your executor-client to keep meticulous records of the services he or she is providing, both by description of activity and time spent. Both will be examined if a dispute arises about the executor’s fees, and having no records of one or the other will not bode well in front of an Orphans’ Court.

4. The fee of an accountant engaged by the estate should be paid out of the executor’s commission, although courts have deducted it from the attorney’s fees; preparation of the account is the executor’s responsibility and the cost thereof is included in his fee.

5. Counsel fees for substantiating the executor’s “right to keep or receive a commission” is payable by the executor and not by the estate.

6. Counsel who is not able to discharge all of the tasks required of counsel for a personal representative e.g., preparation of tax returns, is not entitled to a full attorney’s fee. Counsel fees should be reduced by a reasonable fee paid to an accountant.

7. Counsel has the burden of establishing the right to compensation. When paid without prior court approval it is “at the risk the fees will be found unjustified and disallowed upon adjudication”.

8. Fees incurred after objections to an account are filed, to defend the

The Philadelphia Estate Planning Council Recognizes the

Generous Support of Our Platinum Sponsors




October Luncheon ProgramSponsored by:

Matthew Boynton (sponsor), Robert Hutchinson (sponsor), Scott Atkins (sponsor), Casey Jojic (speaker), Scott Isdaner (PEPC President), Thomas Janke (sponsor) and David Marshall (sponsor)

Just a few years ago, if a practitioner wanted to create a trust with special features – such as investment direction, silent trust provisions, or self-settled asset protection – there were a handful of choices for situs: Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota, Alaska, perhaps Wyoming. These states became magnets for trust formation, leading financial institutions to establish state-specific trust companies to take advantage of local situs. Delaware and Nevada were the primary beneficiaries of this system.

Now, as more states pass statutes permitting directed trusts and self-settled asset protection trusts, codify non-judicial methods of trust modification such as decanting, and repeal or greatly extend the rule against perpetuity, practitioners have more situs choices than ever.

Directed TrustsIn 1986, Delaware passed the first directed trust statute in the country, permitting division of fiduciary powers between multiple advisers and trustees. Since then, most other states have authorized some form of directed trust, with varying provisions to limit the liability of the direction adviser and the trustee. This is most commonly used to designate an individual to direct the trustee on

investment decisions, but in many states that permit directed trusts, the power can also be used to direct distributions or other discretionary matters.

Delaware, Nevada, Alaska and South Dakota popularized the so-called “strong” directed trust statutes, where the trustee has either no liability or is held to a willful misconduct standard for following the direction of an adviser, and a number of other jurisdictions (such as New Hampshire and Tennessee) have enacted similar provisions. Because the standard of liability is limited, these jurisdictions are attractive to corporate fiduciaries.

In 2017 the Uniform Law Commission finalized the Uniform Directed Trust Act (UDTA), which has since been enacted in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Utah. Legislation to adopt

More Choices Than Ever for Specialty Trust SitusTimothy S. Egan


accounts, oppose surcharge requests and defend fees and challenge discovery that do not benefit the estate are subject to disallowance.

The Bottom Line. Each and every one of the cases decided by an Orphans’ Court where executors’ commissions and attorneys’ fees are at issue should be considered a cautionary tale to all who administer estates, whether large or small, to be examined closely on where anybody “went wrong”. And, lastly, do not assume that fees for planning will not also come under the strict scrutiny and wrath of the courts. In Judge Herron’s Adjudication in Jones Est. cited above, he openly inquired as to why the law firm drafted a twenty-nine page Will for the Decedent when her estate consisted of one asset, opining “[t]o call this overkill is an understatement. Alas, one would hope such a lengthy will would at least be well-drafted, but it was not.” Oh my!

1 With apologies to the producers of that classic 1939 film “Wizard of Oz”.

2 In the Adjudication by Judge Herron cited above, he included “eleven factors” from the LaRocca case, but on careful examination of the LaRocca opinion, #5 is counted twice, albeit with the added prefatory words at #11 “very importantly”. More to the point in this opinion from Judge Herron, as further expression of his displeasure with all counsel, he added that “…neither side prepared testimony that addressed all, or even most, of the … factors. By their own admission, the attorneys on both sides did not read LaRocca or its progeny.” Yikes!

3 Reasonableness is also a statutory requirement when it comes to fees for a trustee, if there is neither in the trust instrument nor in a separate written agreement signed by the settlor or another authorized to specify compensation. See, PEF Code §7768(a). Nonetheless, even if one of these two instruments exists, a court may allow reasonable compensation that is more or less than that specified. §7768(b). And in §7768(d), a number of factors are listed that a court may consider in determining reasonable compensation.

Lions, Tigers and Bears continuedJoel S. Luber, Esquire, is chair of the Estates & Trusts Group at Reger Rizzo Darnall LLP. Joel concentrates his practice in sophisticated estate planning for high-net-worth individuals, asset protection planning, estate administration, Orphans’ Court practice, and general corporate and income tax planning.




Pennsylvania | Washington, D.C. | New York | New Jersey | Illinois | Delaware

Relax. Stradley Ronon offers customized guidance to help you reach your asset-protection and family-succession goals.

www.stradley.com

Stradley Ronon provides in-depth planning to ensure that family wealth is cared for, protected and managed by people who understand the family’s goals.We are proud to support the Philadelphia Estate Planning Council and would be glad to assist you with:• Administration of Trusts &

Estates • Business Succession Planning• Estate & Tax Planning• Fiduciary Litigation, Will Contests

& Family Disputes• Guardianships• Premarital, Postnuptial &

Cohabitation Agreements• Private Foundations• Retirement Planning

Stephanie E. Sanderson-BraemPartner | [email protected]





the UDTA has been introduced, but not enacted, in Virginia, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Washington. The UDTA differs from the older Uniform Trust Code (UTC) approach in providing a more expansive direction power, and setting a limited standard of liability for trustees when acting at direction, similar to the statutes of Delaware, Nevada, and others.

Twelve jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, have adopted a form of directed trust under Section 808 of the UTC, which requires a trustee to act at the direction of a designated adviser, unless the direction is “manifestly contrary to the terms of the trust or the trustee knows the attempted exercise would constitute a serious breach of fiduciary duty.” Under this approach, the trustee must determine whether to follow the direction, and therefore retains some liability even

when acting at direction – making this arrangement more like delegation than true direction. The other jurisdictions that have adopted this approach are Alabama, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Iowa has not adopted the UTC, but has a similar statute based on the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, where the trustee “shall act in accordance with an exercise of the power unless the trustee knows the attempted exercise violates the terms of the trust or the trustee knows that the person holding the power is not competent.”

Just six states – California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island – have not enacted some form of directed trust statute.

Situs continued November Luncheon ProgramSponsored by:

Gordon St. John (sponsor), J.R. Burke (sponsor), Todd Steinberg (speaker), Scott Isdaner (PEPC President) and Shane Johnson (sponsor)

J.R. Burke, CLU®, ChFC®, AEP®, CFP®

Shane M. Johnson, CLU®, ChFC®

Securities and Investment Advisory Services Offered Through M Holdings Securities, Inc. A Registered Broker/Dealer and Investment Advisor, Member FINRA/SIPC. Perspective Financial Group is independently owned and operated. Please go to www.mfin.com/DisclosureStatement.htm for further details regarding this relationship.




Privately owned and independent, Bessemer Trust is a multifamily office that has served individuals and families of substantial

wealth for more than 110 years. We offer comprehensive investment management, wealth planning, and family office services,

helping families achieve peace of mind for generations.

To learn more about Bessemer Trust, please contact Senior Wealth Advisor Jeff Webb at 215-902-9572, [email protected], or

Wealth Advisor Dan Cappello at 215-902-9181, [email protected].

BESSEMER TRUST IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THE PHILADELPHIA ESTATE PLANNING COUNCIL

January Luncheon ProgramSponsored by:

Scott Isdaner (PEPC President), Ronald Aucutt (speaker) and Jeff Webb (sponsor)

Self-Settled Asset Protection TrustsSeventeen states now permit self-settled asset protection trusts: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Trust assets are protected from creditors, and the settlor of the trust may also be a beneficiary, as long as the statutory requirements are followed.

DecantingIn recent years, non-judicial methods of modifying existing trusts have proliferated. Perhaps the most well-known is “decanting” – modifying a trust by transferring the assets of an irrevocable trust into a new irrevocable trust with more desirable provisions. Thirty-two states have decanting statutes on the

Situs continuedbooks, with Pennsylvania and New Jersey being notable exceptions.

The mechanics of decanting differs widely between jurisdictions. In 2015 the Uniform Laws Commission finalized the Uniform Trust Decanting Act, which codified a number of requirements and procedures to formalize the process. The Uniform Trust Decanting Act has been enacted by Alabama, California, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington. It has been introduced, but not enacted, in Massachusetts and Nebraska.

Silent TrustsAlaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming permit various mechanisms for withholding trust information (including, in some cases, governing instruments and account statements) from beneficiaries.





Dynasty TrustsSouth Dakota was the first state to allow perpetual trusts in 1983, followed by Delaware a dozen years later. Six additional states have repealed the rule against perpetuities for trusts entirely (including Pennsylvania and New Jersey), while several others have enacted a very long fixed period – 365 years in Nevada, or 500 years in Arizona. A number of states which nominally retain the standard rule against perpetuities (an interest must vest within a life or lives in being plus 21 years or within 90 years) now have opt-out provisions under various conditions.

Many states have one or two of the special features listed above, but there are fewer that offer all of them. Ohio, New Hampshire, and Tennessee do – and they are growing in regional popularity for the Midwest, New England, and Southeast, respectively, if not yet attaining the national profile of Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The latter states have long-established track records at the forefront of trust law and administration. Delaware in particular has an attractive combination of a receptive legislature, sophisticated judiciary, settled case law, and a talent pool for law firms and corporate trustees. Nonetheless, there are more options than ever for practitioners seeking the right trust situs for their clients.

Timothy S. Egan is a Relationship Manager and Wealth Advisor at The Glenmede Trust Company, N.A.

Situs continued The Philadelphia Estate Planning Council Welcomes New MembersOctober, November and January

Ryan Ahrens Heckscher, Teillon, Terrill & Sager, P.C.

Joe Bakey Right at Home

Brian Balduzzi Wilmington Trust Company

Georgia Beit Hawthorn

Nancy Brenner Baker Tilly

David Brown Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP

Matthew Carrozza BNY Mellon Wealth Management

Cindy Charleston-Rosenberg, ISA, CAPP Art Appraisal Firm, LLC

Katherine Del Raso BNY Mellon

Charles Dixon CD Valuation Services, Inc.

Martin Ellner, CLU, ChFC Highland Capital Brokerage

Dawn Fournier National Philanthropic Trust

lois Gabin-Legato, JD Philadelphia Foundation

Matthew Gaughan Edward Jones

Kevin Grisier Glenmede Trust Company, N.A.

Christina Henry-Hashmi Glenmede Trust Company, N.A.

Ivan Hicks Glenmede Trust Company, N.A.

Michael Hoover, CPA Siegfried Advisory

Thomas Hyland Citi Private Bank

Melissa Isman USI Insurance Services

Peter Johnson, Esq. The Philadelphia Trust Company

Antoinette Kent Glenmede Trust Company, N.A.

Michael Krach Signature Advisors, Inc.

Keri Laign Marsh Private Client Services

Ryan Leib, CFP UBS Financial Services

Kirsten Lewis Glenmede Trust Company, N.A.

Conan Louis, Esq. Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Health

Mike McCourt, CFA BB&T Wealth

Terri McDermott, ChFC, CLU, RICP, CAP Fortis Wealth

Thomas Moore Glenmede Trust Company

Austin Morris Jr Morris Risk Management LLC

Charles Morrotta, III Concierge Insurance Solutions

Chloe Mullen-Wilson Heckscher Teillon Terrill & Sager, P.C.

Doug Nannene Philadelphia Foundation





George Papanier AXG Advisors

Shabrei Parker Mincey Fitzpatrick Ross LLC

Caitlyn Pickens Bonhams

Katie Poole Mill Creek Capital Advisors, LLC

Matthew Rosin Teeters Harvey Marrone & Kaier LLP

Marie Shaw Glenmede Trust Company, N.A.

Benjamin South Citi Private Bank

Clark Stossel WhartonHill Investment Advisors

Maxwell Taylor National Philanthropic Trust

Marco Testaiuti, III Santander Investment Services

Sarah Wilson Rago | Wright

Brittany Yodis Stonehage Fleming

New Members continued

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), founded in 1907, is the fi rst and largest cancer research organization in the world. With 40,000 cancer experts working across 120 countries, our quest to eradicate cancer is global. For each dollar donated, 88 cents goes to fulfi lling our mission through research grants, scientifi c education, and patient advocacy.

A legacy commitment to the AACR Foundation ensures a lasting impact on scientifi c discovery and innovation in the treatment and prevention of cancer for generations to come.

1902002AACR.org/Legacy | 844-385-2064 | [email protected] |

LIFESAVING CANCER SCIENCE. MAKE IT YOUR LEGACY.




Holiday PartyThe 2019 Holiday Celebration was held at JG Domestic in the Cira Centre. Over 100 attendees enjoyed an open bar, hors d’oeuvres and food stations inspired by inspired by Chef Jose Garces’ Philadelphia restaurants, Distrito and Village Whiskey. Thank you to Brinker Capital for sponsoring this event!

Marianna Schenk, Erin McQuiggan and Joanne Shallcross

Frank Marcucci, Joel Luber, Victoria Sowa Gordon and Stuart KatzPEPC past presidents David Watson, Mark Eskin and Melinda Rath

Tom McDonnell, Scott Isdaner and Christopher Carn

Event Sponsor Julie Olley from Brinker Capital with Laura Weiner

Thank you to the following companies for donating door prizes:• Blank Rome LLP • EisnerAmper LLP • Friedman LLP • Glenmede Trust Company, N.A. • HUB International • Isdaner & Company LLC • Life Managers & Associates

• Perspective Financial Group, an Alera Group Company

• Stedmark Partners at Janney Montgomery Scott

• Stone Pine Financial Partners • Wells Fargo Home Mortgage


is retirement planning getting more president’s …...for retirement planning”. and in march,...

Documents